Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
The deplorable slaughter of the entire Comparini family, which occurred in this dear city of ours on the second night of the current month of January, and the shedding of their blood, cries out from earth to God for vengeance upon the criminals. And in order that we may fulfil the obligations of the office we are occupying, we have paid down the price of toil to narrate here with faithful pen the series of events. From this, my Lords Judges may readily see what laws may be applicable for a decision as to this cause and for the punishment of the delinquents for the same deed, etc., and so Barbosa says in his axioms in jurisprudence, axiom 93, No. 1: "Just as from the deed the law takes its rise, so from the deed the law dies."
The series of facts, therefore, is as follows: Guido Franceschini of the city of Arezzo, married Francesca Comparini, for whom, by Pietro and Violante Comparini, there were promised as dowry, among other matters, certain properties subject to a reversionary interest. For they had brought this same Francesca up in their home as their own daughter, and as such they married her. Then, as the aforesaid Pietro and Violante had no other children, they left their home in the City to go and live in the home of Franceschini at Arezzo. There, for some time, they continued to live together in peace; but, as often happens among friends and relatives, contentions and quarrellings arose. On account of these, the aforesaid Pietro and Violante left that home and the city of Arezzo, and went back to Rome. In the meantime, as the flame of this enkindled hatred increased, a lawsuit was instituted as to the dowry once promised, but now denied by Pietro, on the pretext that Francesca was not indeed the daughter of the same Pietro and Violante, but that, after a pretence of her birth had been made, she had been received and brought up by them. And for this reason the said Guido and Francesca could not hope for the inheritance of the properties under the reversionary interest. But although Franceschini gained a favourable judgment on this point, yet when appeal had been made on behalf of Pietro Comparini, Francesca declared that she was ill-treated in the home of her husband by himself, and therefore desired to leave that home. Accordingly with the aid and companionship of Canon Caponsacchi, a relative of the said Franceschini, as is supposed, she ran away. But Franceschini had notice of his wife's flight and, following her up, he overtook her at the tavern of Castelnuovo. There he went to the governor of that place and saw to effecting the capture of his wife and the Canon, as indeed followed. Then the quarrel was continued. A criminal suit was brought in this Tribunal of the Governor of the City; the process of action was arranged, and the counsel on both sides was often heard, both by word of mouth and in writing. At last it was decided that owing to lack of proof of adultery the said Canon should be banished to Civita Vecchia and Francesca should be held in safekeeping. But because the Comparini claimed that the furnishing of food in the safekeeping was the duty of Franceschini, and the latter declared it lay with Comparini, the most Illustrious Lord Governor, having first secured the consent of Abate Paolo, the brother of Guido and his representative in the case, assigned the home of the Comparini to Francesca as a safe and secure prison under security.
While these contests were still pending, both in the civil and criminal cases, as well as in that for divorce brought by Francesca, the wife, this same Franceschini schemed to take vengeance upon the abovesaid. For the execution of this criminal purpose he brought together Domenico Gambassini of Florence, Alessandro Baldeschi of the region of Castello, Francesco Pasquini Antonii of the Marquisate of Monte Acuto, and Blasio Agostinelli of the town of Popolo, and dwelling at the Villa Quarata. He provided them with swords and dagger, prohibited by the Bull of Alexander VIII., and entered the City in company with the aforesaid men. Approaching the home of the Comparini, at the first hour of the night, he secured the opening of the door to himself under the pretence of bringing a letter, sent to Violante by the said Canon Caponsacchi, then staying at Civita Vecchia. As soon as the door of the home was opened by the said Violante, the aforesaid Guido and his companions immediately set upon her. She was cut to pieces with their swords and immediately fell dead. Pietro likewise was cut down and died. Francesca, however, tried to hide under a bed, but was found and wounded in many places. Then, as if God granted her the favour, she was not left utterly dead, though after a few days she also passed away; and thus she could reveal this monstrous crime. As soon as my Lord Governor had notice of this, with most vigilant attention, he saw that the malefactors were pursued beyond the City. Accordingly that same night, they were discovered in the tavern at Merluccia with firearms and illegal swords, still bloody, and were taken back to prison. Then, when a case had been made against them, they were examined as to the crime. Some of them indeed confessed it, and although the others made denial of the management and knowledge of the killing of the entire family, yet against them there are most urgent presumptions of the knowledge and management abovesaid. Furthermore, from the same prosecution the gravest proofs have resulted, such as can be but slightly attacked and controverted by the Defence.
Hence, when this cause may be presented to receive judgment, we believe that no foundation can afford defence for the criminals to escape the capital penalty, so far as they have confessed their crime, or can release those who have denied it from the rigorous torture of the vigil. For what if the Defence do strongly argue the question as to whether a husband who kills an adulterous wife, not immediately and when found in adultery, but after an interval, ought to be excused from the ordinary penalty of the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis? Some authorities indeed give an affirmative opinion for the excuse of the husband, as is to be seen in Giurba. [Citations.] Yet all of these authorities for mitigating the penalty upon a husband who kills his wife after an interval are moved by this reason: That since the sense of injured honour always oppresses the heart, it is difficult to restrain just resentment; for this reason the defence of the honour is said to be immediate when done as quickly as possible.
But there are indeed many other authorities who stand by the negative, asserting that a husband who kills his wife, otherwise than when taken in adultery and in acts of passion, should be punished with the ordinary penalty. [Citations.] Rainaldi [Citation] says this opinion is the truer and the more advantageous to the state, nor should one depart from it in giving judgment. Sanzio says that it was often adjudged in this Senate that a husband was not excused by adultery legitimately proved, if he killed his wife after an interval; and for this reason, because formerly, according to the law of Romulus, a husband could kill his wife, but the Lex Julia permitted him to kill only the vile adulterer, as Matthæus proves. [Citation.]
But in this our present show of fact we believe we are dealing with a matter outside of the difficulty of this proposed question. For the authorities cited above for the contrary opinion hold good, and should be understood to do so, whenever the contention is about a husband who has killed his wife without excess of law and with no concurring circumstances and aggravating qualities, and when moved only by just grievance. But it is otherwise when, as in our case, excess and contempt of law is present and aggravating circumstances and qualities concur. Laurentius Matthæus [Citation] testifies that, according to common practice, such a distinction has been followed out. And after he had affirmed that a husband should be excused from the ordinary penalty and be punished more mildly, he adds: "For these reasons, it is the common practice to weigh the effect of the grievance and to punish only the excess; so that if the suspicion of guile in the manner of killing is present (as he considers any circumstance which tends toward treachery) the penalty is aggravated."
The aggravating circumstances which concur in our case are indeed many, and they are so grave that any one of them is enough reason for imposing the death penalty or for qualifying the crime.
The first of these is the assembling of armed men; for according to decrees of the Governor of this City, the penalty of death and of the confiscation of goods is inflicted upon the one assembling the men; and this is true even if those assembled are but four, as is read in chapter 82 of the same Banns. This circumstance and quality cannot be evaded on the authority of certain jurists who assert that it is permissible for a husband to kill his wife, even by means of men thus brought together. For the said authorities speak, and should be understood, in a case in which a husband may kill with impunity an adulterer and his own wife in the very act of adultery, or in the home of the husband. But it is otherwise if she is killed after an interval, or outside of the home of her husband; according to what is given. [Citation.] Or these matters might hold good if in no other way he could kill the adulterer and his wife. So think all authorities who can be adduced in favour of the husband. This cannot be said in our case since Franceschini, while following his wife with firearms, could have taken vengeance at the inn of Castelnuovo. But he had recourse to the judge, and chose the legal way of punishing his wife and the Canon with whom she fled. Or these claims would hold good if he had assembled a smaller number of men, whereby the crime of conventicle would not have been established. And this is the more strongly to be held because we are not concerned with a deed that is unpunishable, and permissible by law, as I have said.
Nor do we believe that the Defence can make a claim that the husband may kill an adulterous wife after an interval with impunity; for all the authorities who can be adduced in favour of the husband free him indeed from the ordinary penalty, but not from an extraordinary penalty, as those adduced by us above in § Hinc cum Causa can be seen to hold. If therefore, in our case, the husband committed a crime punishable in itself, how could he assemble a number of men forming a conventicle prohibited by the Banns, without incurring the penalty threatened by them?